Your definition of “anti-sex” is not like mine.

See, I define “anti-sex” as you think sex is bad. Or that sex should be kind of like a punishment (or that you should be punished for having it). Or that you don’t think sex should be enjoyable. And I define “pro-sex” as thinking that sex is a normal and healthy part of the human experience, and that sex should be good and fun and fulfilling for everyone involved.

Like the other great religions of the world, though, the goal of contemporary feminism and Gay Party activism is not to explain sex, but to abolish its passion. The yin and yang of masculinity and femininity is what makes sexual exploration exciting. Sex isn’t about contract-signing. It’s about spontaneity, raw energy and control (or its counterpart, surrender).

…which is funny, because Alex Knepper is also gay, which I think means he typically has sex that involves two yangs. However does he do it? Well, as he explained to Amanda Hess:

“Gay men—by which I do not mean the eunuchs who constitute the vanguard of so-called queer activism—are far more likely to understand that dressing one’s boyfriend up like a girl and fucking his ass with a dildo is to feminize him. The feminine element of sexuality is not literally about being female—it’s about surrender and submission. One might say that my homosexuality is the ultimate expression of my deep-seated hatred for women, though, right?”

Honey, it’s not your homosexuality that is the ultimate expression of your deep-seated hatred for women. Your continued written accounts of your deep-seated hatred for women are the ultimate expressions of your deep-seated hatred for women. Although your contention that the “feminine” element of sexuality is not about literally being female and is divorced from one’s physical sex sounds suspiciously like something you might hear in a gender-theory course. Watch out!

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK? To cry “date rape” after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone’s head and then later claiming that you didn’t ever actually intend to pull the trigger.

“Date rape” is an incoherent concept. There’s rape and there’s not-rape, and we need a line of demarcation. It’s not clear enough to merely speak of consent, because the lines of consent in sex — especially anonymous sex — can become very blurry. If that bothers you, then stick with Pat Robertson and his brigade of anti-sex cavemen! Don’t jump into the sexual arena if you can’t handle the volatility of its practice!

In other words, ladies, don’t try and socialize or flirt or engage in any sexual activity at all unless you want to be raped! Silly rabbits, thinking that sex should also be fun and voluntary for you, too.

I can kind of understand, from a male point of view, why articles like Knepper’s and other anti-feminist rape apologetics make sense on the surface. A lot of us have been in situations where we engaged in some sort of sexual activity without anyone explicitly saying “Yes I want to do X, Y and Z with you right now.” We’ve been in situations where one party initially said “no” or “wait” to one thing or another, and then some amount of time later changed their mind and said “yes” or “ok now.” Most of us realize that sex can be a little bit messy, communication-wise, and it’s scary to think that you could hook up with someone who seemed to be enjoying it and consenting all the way, and then the next day they accuse you of rape. It’s scary to think that someone could initially say no, then change their minds and say yes, and then say that they meant “no” all along. And that’s the picture that rape apologists paint: A fun, drunken night, and the next day the cops are at your door.

But that’s not how this really works.

Most on-campus rapists don’t identify as rapists, but they do realize that they are forcing women into unwanted sex. Right-wing rape apologists are pretty good at encouraging men to put themselves in the shoes of those accused of rape — “Can you imagine going home with a girl and then the next morning she regrets it and you’re going to jail?” I find it really helpful to actually think through, fully, an acquaintance-rape scenario as they more typically happen (and here I’ll switch to more gender-neutral terms, since acquaintance-rape is not only men raping women, as it’s often imaged — and again, these descriptions may be triggering). It’s easy to remember that time you had a few beers and also had consensual sex — something that rape apologists try to exploit. But it should be just as easy to remember that time you were hooking up with someone and they said to stop or slow down and of course you did! Or the time you were hooking up with someone and you said to stop or slow down or you just pulled back or moved their hand away and of course they stopped wherever you drew that line, and you didn’t really give it a second thought, because what kind of person hears “stop” or “no” and keeps going anyway?

We need to point this out again and again. Rape as it really happens? Gets a lot harder to imagine (at least from the perspective of the rapist) when you actually stop to picture it:

You go home with someone who is so drunk they can’t remove their own clothes or speak coherently. It’s clear they can’t even get naked themselves, let alone be an enthusiastic participant in whatever you would like to ensue. At this point, do you decide that you will remove their own clothes for them and have sex with them, when it’s clear that they can’t respond or react or engage?

You’re in bed with someone, and they pass out. Do you have sex with them?

When you want to have sex, do you intentionally seek out people who you suspect are too drunk to verbally or physically refuse?

You’re engaging in some sexual activity with someone, and they start to pull back or their body stiffens, and they say “no.” When you look at their face, they look scared. Do you continue anyway?

You’re engaging in some sexual activity and then they say “stop” or “no.” If they say “no” or “stop” or they yell, do you keep going? If they cry, you keep going? If they try to push you away, do you keep going?

You’re engaging in some sexual activity, and the person you’re with says to stop. Do you threaten them in order to convince them to have sex with you?

You’re engaging in some sexual activity, and the person you’re with tells you to stop. Do you physically restrain them? Do you pin them down? Do you intentionally hurt them, or use your strength or size to immobilize them while you have sex with them?

When we talk about acquaintance rape, we aren’t talking about “normal sexual activity” gone wrong. We’re talking about things that no compassionate person — no person without the intent to do harm — would do to another human being.* This isn’t about confusion or miscommunication or domination or submission or seduction or regret. It is about hurting someone else, on purpose. It is about using sex as a weapon, not as a pleasure. It’s about seeing sex as something you do to someone, not something you do with someone. It looks absolutely nothing like your standard sexual interactions or negotiations, when you actually think about standard sexual interactions and negotiations. It’s about as anti-sex as you can get.

It would be helpful if, when faced with narratives like Alex Knepper’s, we would cut through the “you hate sex” bullshit and point out that rape — including rape where the victim knows the perpetrator — is about intentional harm and not sex or seduction. Sex is fun. Being physically assaulted is not. Casting sex as an act where one party dominates and “feminizes” the other by forcing them into things that they neither enjoy nor consent to? Is not being pro-sex! Suggesting that spending time alone with another person after you’ve been drinking is automatically consenting to sex? Is not being pro-sex! Oh and ignoring evidence that campus rapists intentionally target incapacitated women and that very little of this amounts to sexual miscommunication is just lazy, dishonest or both.

One would think that the most basic requirements for good sex are (a) both people want to be there; (b) both people want the sexual activity to be happening; (c) both people are enjoying whatever they’re doing together. Perhaps beyond that good sex for you involves one activity or another, or putting this thing over here or that thing in there, or touching that like that, or wearing or not wearing this or that, or being dominant or submissive, or talking dirty, or lighting some candles, or, I don’t know, bringing in ice cubes or a third party or a stuffed water buffalo. People are different, and sometimes weird, and sex is different and often really weird! But the basics of wanting to be there, wanting to do whatever stuff you’re doing, and liking whatever stuff you’re doing should be pretty consistent.

This is not that difficult.

And that would be my advice to American University students attempting to argue with Alex Knepper’s suggestion that rape either doesn’t exist or is part of normal sexual activity: Emphasize that normal sexual activity is pleasurable, and that both parties want to be doing what they’re doing. Emphasize that campus rapes happen disproportionately at the hands of repeat offenders who select their targets based explicitly on a perceived inability to consent. Emphasize that a truly sex-positive model of consent — one where sex is imaged as fun for both people, and where consent isn’t just an absence of “no” but a full-on yes yes yes please! — gets rid of this whole supposed “confusion”/miscommunication problem that Knepper and other rape apologists reply on.

Mostly, emphasize that sex is normal and healthy and fun and generally pretty awesome — so what the fuck is wrong with people like Knepper who think that it’s ok to use it as a weapon, or as a means of doing harm to other people? That’s about as anti-sex as it gets.

___________________________________
*Hopefully this is clear enough, but we’re talking about human beings who aren’t consenting. Plenty of people have great consensual sex that involves physical restraint or saying “no” or whatever. It should probably go without saying that I’m not talking about consensual power play or BDSM or a myriad of other, say it again now, consensual sexual activities.

63 Responses to Your definition of “anti-sex” is not like mine.

so what the fuck is wrong with people like Knepper who think that it’s ok to use it as a weapon, or as a means of doing harm to other people?

Say what now? Do you mean to tell me that you do not prefer to weaponize your favorite hobbies? Such crazy talk! ‘Cause god knows if someone’s not crying and trying to accuse me of a felony at the end of a Scrabble game or after I lend them my favorite manga I just don’t see the appeal. :p

But seriously, you make a very excellent point. There is pretty much nothing more anti-sex than trying to make it a miserable and sadistic experience. Transforming activity A (sex) into activity B (rape) is about as objectively anti-activity-A as you can get.

besides the same-old and disgusting victim-blaming knepper puts forward, i happen to find his take on female sexuality the most disturbing. he’s trying ot pseudo-employ feminist writers’ critical takes on het sexuality in saying that “the feminine element of sexuality is not literally about being female—it’s about surrender and submission”.

yet, his conclusion, scarily, is, that this is alright. even more, it’s desirable, for men (and women?) to put women into that position, e.g. as submissive play-toy for men’s pleasure, subordinate, and endure passively (not sure, by the way, what his take on non-cis women and lesbian sex is, since he only talks about cis homosexual men and heterosexual men and women).

i am simply horrified. and his reaction to the alleged “vandalism”, i.e. putting up signs against rape apologies and putting all of the newspapers in front of the eagle office’s door, upholding liberalism against “feminazi censorhip”, make him even a bigger asshole. i hope that guy never gets to write a single line again.

Personally I couldn’t get past the fact that knepper is the present form of the Danish word for fuck. As in “Jeg knepper” = “I fuck”. So reading Alex Knepper it reads to my Danish brain as Alex fucks. And he certainly does seem to be fucking quite badly with the definitions of what rape is and isn’t.

Geez.

Good post by the way. At least the name I have a hard time taking seriously is attached to a person I have a hard time taking seriously. It’d be a waste otherwise :P

In addition to all above comments, I’m sorry, but… I perform as a drag king, and know all kindsa drag queens and other men-id’d people who dress in women’s clothing who would be EXTRAORDINARILY offended by the idea that because they put on a dress or tights or high heels or make up, their sexuality is about “submitting”.

And also, being in a “submissive” sexual position (whatever that may mean) doesn’t mean you are “less than” or whatever. I thought the BDSM community made this pretty clear… play is different from the rest of life, and it’s uncool to treat “submissives” like shit, etc… as a member of the BDSM community, the way that Knepper links a “submissive” position to women being “less than” is bizarre, but maybe I’m reading too much into it.

Cha-Cha, I don’t think you’re reading too much into it — I think Knepper’s point is exactly that sex involves one party being “less than,” and that correlates to submissiveness which correlates to femininity. Which is fucked up from a variety of angles.

Aw, come on, Jill. Look, I totes get what the d00d is saying. Why, when I clock someone over the head with a cast-iron skillet, we all know that it’s just part of cooking. To say otherwise is anti-food.

FSM, the gay world must be a lot more full of eunuchs than I imagined, cos “dressing one’s boyfriend up like a girl and fucking his ass with a dildo… to feminize him” is not really run-of-the-mill gay sex where I’m from. (Obviously, if consenting adults are rocking it, more power to them. I’m just saying, I’m pretty sure that most gay sex looks nothing like that.) Imagine! My boyfriend and I have been having eunuch-sex all this time! /baffled.

Jill, thanks for this post. Besides the college rapists who look for and create vulnerabilities which they would call a hook up or casual sex, there are college rapists who will only rape those he/she dates. These are also not misunderstandings since these rapists tend to view the date or dating relationship as giving them ownership over the other person’s body. Some college rapists rape as revenge when another person does something wrong (at least from the rapist’s perspective).

These rapists are also likely to be serial rapists, their MOs will just be modified according to when they want to rape or feel entitled to rape. All these rapists love the narrative that when their rape victims report them they are just expressing morning after regret.

Bagelsan, you make a great point about rapists wanting to turn sex into rape. Some rapists will do this once they gain any consent. I’ve experienced this transformation only once and I’m not sure I’ve ever had a more terrifying experience. I could see that in his eyes I wasn’t human. When I ran I felt like I was running for my life.

Heck, Cha-Cha, I could even say the same for folks who *aren’t* man-ID’d and who put on tights, dresses, lipstick, whatever! I.e., that their apparel does not reflect their sexuality, submissiveness or otherwise. (Especially not when they could get their point across much more specifically with a stylish scarf in the appropriate color tied around the right and/or left wrist, depending!) To say nothing of how submissive =/= “want to have a crime committed against me”.

Knepper seems deliberately unschooled in the nuances of human sexuality, and in differentiating love from violence, which is more disturbing. Well, he is 20. I am happy to report that my sexual sophistication at 28 is orders of magnitude what it was at 20. One hopes that he learns something at this college.

Sex is *always* about submission, and submission is always “feminine?” That seems to me to be a pretty specific idea of sex, and one that is not even enjoyable to Mr. Knepper. That’s about the most dispassionate description of role play I’ve ever heard; in and of itself, I think he’s anti- even to the sex he admits to having. This anti-woman sentiment expresses makes me think that perhaps he was the victim of a sexual assault and in his self-loathing somehow associated his feelings with feminine behavior (wrongly). Perhaps somebody should suggest he see a therapist.

I’ve never understood the contention that people “cry rape” when they regret sex the next day. It seems that most people’s natural reaction is “and let’s never, ever speak of this again.” If I regretted screwing a guy I sure wouldn’t want to go through the public court system to discuss it and have it printed up in the media.

A lot of us have been in situations where we engaged in some sort of sexual activity without anyone explicitly saying “Yes I want to do X, Y and Z with you right now.” We’ve been in situations where one party initially said “no” or “wait” to one thing or another, and then some amount of time later changed their mind and said “yes” or “ok now.” Most of us realize that sex can be a little bit messy, communication-wise, and it’s scary to think that you could hook up with someone who seemed to be enjoying it and consenting all the way, and then the next day they accuse you of rape. It’s scary to think that someone could initially say no, then change their minds and say yes, and then say that they meant “no” all along. And that’s the picture that rape apologists paint: A fun, drunken night, and the next day the cops are at your door.

is reminding me of a recent post on the yes means yes blog called “talking past each other”. I think you’re mentioning something important here: guys/men are often worried about something that women aren’t actually thinking of by using the term “rape”. And that leads to problematic arguments where one side feels disrespected and the other side becomes defensive after being called “rape apologist”.

While I don’t think that any of the examples you mention will be controversial in any way, there are also feminists who do claim that no consent is possible after a woman has drunk even a single drop of beer. I don’t suppose it’s too surprising that men are largely concentrating on *this* part of the discourse rather than the part you mention in your examples.

You also mention the nightmare scenario – “A fun, drunken night, and the next day the cops are at your door.” It’s not a common scenario, of course, but the fear of being wrongly accused is certainly driving many guy’s perception of such discussions, which is probably not too surprising.

So, part of the solution, it seems to me, could be to logically separate the different issues in a way that would incorporate the acceptance that such fears are real but apparently mostly unrelated to the problem feminists usually want to talk about when discussing rape.

This Alex fella seems to have read one too many comic books.
“If you aren’t a demon then you must be the angel and vice versa.”
I am so glad that nothing I ever wrote or thought when I was 20 was ever seen by anyone. Geez, how stupid would I feel now?!

It’s not a common scenario, of course, but the fear of being wrongly accused is certainly driving many guy’s perception of such discussions, which is probably not too surprising.

You’re absolutely right. A small number of men with an irrational fear that is deeply rooted in their low opinion of women (those malicious and unpredictable lying bitches!) should clearly be the focus of discussions about a disgusting and terrifyingly common crime that overwhelmingly targets women. I mean, sure, somewhere around 1 in 4 women is gonna get raped at some point in her life, but there’s a 1 in a million chance that a man will be falsely accused! Also, guys who worry excessively about rape being an actual prosecutable offense probably have no pressing reason to be so very, very concerned. Yep, sounds like a good thing to bring up right now on this particular thread. What this discussion about a clueless rape-apologist needs is more dudes with an urgent need to let us know what they think about how ladies’re doin’ it wrong.

Sam wrote: It’s not a common scenario, of course, but the fear of being wrongly accused is certainly driving many guy’s perception of such discussions, which is probably not too surprising.

This fear is often driven by those who distort real rape cases to make them into something they are not in order to increase fear in men who do not rape.

An example of this is the case Maryland v. Baby which the defense appealed because of a jury question about revoking consent and which is often summarized in a way to make it seem like a trumped up case where a hapless and harmless defendant was railroaded. The details of the victim’s testimony from court records (trigger warning) reveal that Maouloud Baby in no way fit that description.

God, what a twat. And he cites Camille Paglia as a favorite author? Camille Paglia is like the Sartre to Natalie Angier’s Camus—she wishes she were as cool. The bisexuality she thinks gives her an edge and makes up for her horrible benighted, anti-woman dogma is like the Stalinism Sartre thought made up for his couch potato behavior during the Occupation. A resounding no.

i “love” it when male college students tell me what sex is all about. i mean, it’s not like i have been enjoying it since (oh maude, i am old!) before they were born or anything… and it’s certainly not like i have been a woman for oh, all 35 years of my life, as opposed to mr. keppner’s 0…

did you read my comment? Because I said that I think that an effort to terminologically separate the two issues may allow to address both in a more appropriate way. I suggested that accepting the fear as “real”, while not statistically justified (as are most kind of fears, by the way – most are, on some level “irrational”), would allow more men to not be defensive about such issues and thus benefit the discoursive focus you are worried about. Did you read the “talking past each other” thread on the “yes-means-yes”-blog?

So, let me get this straight: If I see a man, who drunk too much “jungle juice” and unfortunately passed out, I can do whatever I wish to him? His body belongs to me? His penis is mine to do as I wish?

After all, by voluntarily drinking too much he indicates his need to me abused and raped and mutilated by me. Right?

and this is all alex knepper has to say in response to the overwhelming criticism on the eagle’s homepage:

Phew! What a mess. I didn’t know that they’d turned the comments back on. I’ll try to get around tomorrow with an FAQ. This might be more productive if done on an actual blog or website, rather than in the comments section. My e-mail is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)—feel free to contact me if you can offer a cleaner space for some of this to be expounded upon. As a preliminary statement, though: yes, I stand by the column—no, I do not apologize for a single word—yes, I think that the reaction has proven my point about feminists wanting to treat women like children rather than as responsible adults. I’m also deeply disturbed by the way that Women’s Initiative has been manipulating victims of rape into acting as publicity tools for their ideological agenda.

Start a debate on how it produces gender equality? Where’s the debate? College papers are free to continue (and seem to choose to do so pretty often) printing articles that oppress women and then blame women for that oppression.

Wow. Here is another statement from Alex in the comments thread of the article:

You people are a bunch of Victorians. Who is the woman-hater? The guy who says that women have sexual power, or the person who says that women are porcelain dolls? The guy who says that women are tough enough to take some cat-calls, or the person who says that that constitutes “sexual harassment”? The guy who says that rape should not shatter a person’s life—or the person who says that it constitutes utter trauma? Give me a break.

I had no idea that refusing to tolerate street harassment and rape are signs of weakness! (This is such a classic manipulation tactic: “I will respect you so much more if you put up with whatever abuse is being meted out.”)

I’ve never understood the contention that people “cry rape” when they regret sex the next day. It seems that most people’s natural reaction is “and let’s never, ever speak of this again.” If I regretted screwing a guy I sure wouldn’t want to go through the public court system to discuss it and have it printed up in the media.

And I just want to lift that up. I’ve had sex I regret before! I have had sex I said yes to in the moment that I wish I hadn’t, in that “oh god what a bad choice” or “oh god, I shouldn’t’ve done that.” And you know what? That’s different from rape; that’s part of being a CONSENTING adult who, sometimes, uses bad judgement. The conflation of these two things is a) ridiculous and b) a gigantic issue in terms of ignoring the ability of most adults to make a real discernment between “I shouldn’t’ve done that!” and “I was raped.”

Ok, so I was curious (and procrastinating) and so I looked up this Knepper character’s facebook page. He definitely seems like a very self-important young man. Anyway, he says on his Wall:

Someone at Feministe wrote advice to people who are arguing with me on campus — Good God! Arguing with me!? I would do anything for someone to argue with me! LOL.

Isn’t it sort of weird that he has characterized this column as “advice” to his opponents on campus? Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t understand that.

I don’t know what is going on on his campus, but I see a lengthy comments thread criticizing his column, including many substantive comments written by people apparently on his campus.

Weirdly, his column has gotten a lot of attention in the national press. Also weird, because don’t we see lots of dumb articles in this vein from college newspapers? I am not seeing what’s special about this one.

what i find particularly frustrating about knepper is that he is actually loving the attention and ridicules everyone who criticizes him, saying he loves to incite rage and hate, because, obviously, he knows the actual *truth* and *you* are just in denial (harhar)… i have looked up his facebook page, too, and in the “about me” section, he writes

I’m actually a bit perplexed by his level of ignorance (and the editors’ ignorance, as well: they have pseudo-apologized for the “tone” of the piece, not the actual content…). i think i’ll just go with: not worth arguing with. especially after his comment about whiny victim-feminists on this site trying to “give advice” on “how to argue” with him and how he loves that (??? which probably translates, to non-misogynists as: people tearing his “column” apart to the pieces of garbage it is). what.an.idiot.

Knepper’s obvious influence by Camille Paglia is painful for me to read, because I myself was a Paglia acolyte when I was his age, back when she first became famous (more than 15 years ago).

I think Paglia appeals to young people who want to see themselves as “independent thinkers.” When you are on a very liberal campus, you want to see what you might be missing or not understanding in the alternative point of view and Paglia wraps that alternative view in a sexy and appealing package. She provides a vocabulary for calling yourself a “strong woman” or even “a feminist” woman while distinguishing yourself from the mainstream at your feminist, liberal college. You get to feel special and unique, as you indulge the pleasures of contrarianism.

In my case, I grew up. I listened to (and was persuaded by) what real feminists have to say. I realized that I don’t want to tolerate demeaning or non-consensual treatment in the belief that it is just part of what Paglia calls the “sizzle of sex.” I actually had sex with people who did not view domination and submission as the primary means of human sexual expression. I finally understood that Paglia’s views of rape would require me to check my self-respect at the door.

So there IS hope for college doofuses. I am not sure about Knepper though. He seems to have it pretty bad and, of course, it is not his humanity and dignity that are at issue in the date-rape “debate.”

Now I’m on a roll. Guys like Knepper also frequently use what I view as a straight-up bullying tactic from Paglia’s playbook. You make an utterly reactionary argument (i.e. women who get drunk at frat parties are asking for it). Someone refers to you as a “conservative.” Then you scream, “But I love cross-dressing and kink and fetishes! You are stupid for thinking I’m conservative!!! You can’t handle my complexity!! I am so original!!! Ha, ha, I got you!!!!”

This tactic puts the focus back on you and how special you are, keeps your opponent off-balance, and distracts people from the fact that you have, in fact, uttered a boring, unoriginal, long-discredited, reactionary argument. (Libertarians also love doing this.)

Is it really productive to encourage a hate-filled conservative or libertarian to continue spewing all over this well meaning forum? I support what this forum stands for, I am a lesbian (who loves my male friends) and I cringe at the notion that the wrong people venture into a forum like this one just to make trouble. It is suspicious and raises my eyebrow.

This person does not know or fully understand rape and what it does to the victim of such offense. It is degrading to humor this lost soul and yet we try desperately to educate him. Why? Because we hold on to the idea that even one of these type of people can be salvaged. It’s highly unlikely.

I am a forensic psychologist and this Knepper disturbs me, psychologically speaking… causing me to wonder if he is prepared for the women here and the strength of such supported females that refuse to accept the bantering from a person that obviously is threatened by the feminine point of view on the topic of sex, rape, dominance, and submission or any other topic for that matter.
What exactly compels certain people to even read and post in forums that they so clearly despise or don’t understand? Curious…

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WRITING THIS ARTICLE. I am a student at this school and Knepper has made me physically sick. He has written articles like this in the past as well. I don’t understand the point of this or any of his articles-pretty sure there isnt one. This guy is an attention FREAK-he brings dead stuffed birds to class. I’m all for letting one’s freak flag fly, but this kid is psychotic. He’s giving our school a really really bad name and it sucks that I have to be associated with it.

Re American University’s response- kids at the school are all genuinely ‘wtf’ about this. no one supports this kid besides his editors but i feel like thats mainly to cover their own asses. the day the issue of the newspaper came out individuals (rumored to be women’s groups but idk) threw around the newspapers & removed them from stands-somewhat pointless because the article is obviously available online. Knepper used this as an opportunity to talk about censorship and the 1st amendment-too bad the ignoramus doesn’t know that the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to the actions of a private school newspaper or its students.

I think the reason why its getting so much national attention is because American University is the most politically active campus in the country. We are well known for liberal students, women’s studies and GLBT clubs & activities. its strange for something like this to come out of a space that is usually so progressive.

WOW. Knepper, huh? This dude exemplifies so many things that are wrong with our society it’s not even funny. I’m getting really tired of these willfully ignorant, unoriginal, divisive, self-indulgent arguments.

Another Laurie and becky: Thanks for the informative background on this combative little misogynist. Well-said.

Since Alex Knepper is gay, has it occurred to him that if he goes someplace with a gay friend who he is not sleeping with, or, in fact, any man at all, he has by his own logic just consented to sex? And if his friend rapes him, by his own logic that is just sex he regretted having? Does he expect that when he gets drunk with friends, he will wake up with a friend’s penis inside him, and if someone told him that he should have expected that for getting drunk around men, wouldn’t he recognize what a stupid statement that would be?

I do not wish rape on anyone — I am not wishing that Alex Knepper would be raped by one of his friends, under any circumstances. But I do think that it might suggest that in fact, he doesn’t *have* any friends, because the average gay man has plenty of gay friends he doesn’t sleep with, and would immediately recognize that an argument that goes like “Women should not be vulnerable in the presence of male friends, or they are consenting to sex”, would also contain “Gay men should not be vulnerable in the presence of gay male friends, or they are consenting to sex”… and I think most gay men with friends would immediately recognize such logic to be bogus.

I absolutely agree with Charlie Szold’s statement that the “concept[s] of date rape, gray rape, and consent are of vital importance on a college campus where women and men are in new and confusing sexual situations”. This statement implies that the men and women who attend American University want to understand the meaning of these concepts so that they can learn how to communicate with each other, avoid harming others, and treat their potential sexual partners with the respect and consideration they deserve – worthy goals, in every regard.

How exactly, though, does publishing Alex Knepper’s arguments help to clarify the “concept[s] of date rape, gray rape, and consent”, given that 1) he believes that the term “date rape” is usually cover for next-morning regret, and therefore doesn’t really exist, and 2) that he is perfectly happy to assume consent based on a set of actions that could mean any number of things? (A girl attending an EI party may be drinking out of nervousness, not out of a desire to have sex; she may go back to a boy’s room because she trusts his promise that he will not try to violate her body).

For once, I’d like to see an op-ed that talks about the constructive, substantive ways in which men and women are trying to advance the dialogue about “date rape, gray rape, and consent”, rather than simply repeating tired, victim-blaming cliches. Your newspaper could have published an article on the efforts to promote a “yes means yes” understanding of consent, rather than the older “no means no” model, so that both partners are able to clearly communicate their needs and desires beforehand. Or, you could have published an article on Men Can Stop Rape (MCSR), a national organization that tries to mobilize men as allies in the fight against sexual violence. One of their posters says, “My strength is not for hurting. She was drunk – so I backed off” – a message many more people need to hear, rather than the “She was drunk – so I assumed she had consented to anything I wanted to do to her” line that Knepper’s article feeds us. Or, better yet, you could have highlighted Dr. David Lisak’s research, which shows that the vast majority of college “date rapes” are not the result of misunderstanding at all, but of predatory men willfully targeting women they know are too intoxicated to give consent.

Given that no one on The Eagle’s editorial staff is resigning, that leaves you with plenty more time to start encouraging the “intelligent”, fact-based dialogue you supposedly believe in.

Huh? I don’t think I do that. But I’m writing, right now, about a right-wing college columnist.

Right-wing rape apologists are pretty good at encouraging men to put themselves in the shoes of those accused of rape — “Can you imagine going home with a girl and then the next morning she regrets it and you’re going to jail?

Yeah, I realize that. But saying “right-wing rape apologists do X” is not the same as me saying that left-wing and centrist and whatever else rape apologists don’t — it just means I was talking about right-wingers in that specific context. Like if I say “cats have paws,” it doesn’t mean that dogs DON’T have paws. It just means we’re probably talking about cats.

But saying “right-wing rape apologists do X” is not the same as me saying that left-wing and centrist and whatever else rape apologists don’t — it just means I was talking about right-wingers in that specific context.

Jill, you are so complicated! Why do women always insist on being so very hard to understand?! Don’t you realize that we should speak only in legal language, contractually, covering every possible eventuality verbally and in writing, to make absolutely sure those darling confused (not-rapists-or-trolls-at-all-no-sir) men around us don’t get misled? If you do not *explicitly* state things exactly the way he wants to hear them, who can blame the poor thing for continuing to bother you? :D

Apparently Knepper has appeared on the Early Show and Inside Edition to “debate” a rep of the campus women’s group.

It’s sickening to me that his sophomoric column is being rewarded with national press. I haven’t seen the clips yet (I think you can find them on his facebook page) but the very fact that he was invited implies that he has somehow raised a refreshing new point about rape, rather than tedious crap that we’ve all heard a million times before.

Googling him reveals he’s a big Ayn Rand fan. Aren’t her books full of rape fantasy sex? It sounds like he’s just parroting the beliefs he read in other people’s books. I find him boring, yet dangerous.

Alex K. … what can I say – you are one fucked up individual. just cause you like to have D/s encounters with your boyfriend does not mean (a) that all women are submissives all the time (I think they can decide for themselves what they like and don’t like) (trust me if you were having sex w/ women you would understand that a female is just as capable of being (figuratively) “on top”). Or, just because you and your BF like to pretend that your boyfriend did not consent that (b) it’s ok to have a real non-consent to sex. Trying to draw in the fear-of being-falsely-labeled-a-rapist card is just a recruiting tool so you can get some misguided supporters for your apologist cause. Yes, among some young men the fear exists that you’ll end up dating some fatal-attraction type girl and she’ll tell a bunch of lies to the cops about you, but it’s just that – a random fear – maybe campuses should discuss what constitutes consent also to mitigate this unfounded fear – when I went to school ages ago we were lectured correctly about what did not constitute consent, but the school did not express any sex-positive views (sex is still bad – be careful how you do it was the message). This was the age of the written “sex contract” (yes they actually distrubuted such a thing and expected couples to sign it before having sex (like that would help in a consent withdrawal situation – it would actually aid the rapist in front of a jury IMO). I was always a smart-ass so I asked the resident assistant if the school wanted the whole encouter video-taped as well – that did not go over too well.

Never heard of him before, but this Knepper really is an awful person. I too get really irate when people accuse me of being ‘anti-sex’ when I won’t agree with THEIR definition of what constitutes sex (usually their good old ‘man fuck, woman get fucked’ “paradigm”).

Sheelzebub – the cooking analogy really made me laugh; definitely a line I will use with rape apologists in the future.
*snorts with laughter thinking about it*

Even setting aside the well-addressed ideological concerns like “respecting people’s bodily autonomy” and “being a decent person,” it boggles my mind that perpetuating the idea that men (mostly) are so defensive of the idea of rape as an expected outcome. How can people think that a culture where an individual cannot feel free to withdraw sex or give sex for anything less than full-blown intercourse in a certain circumstance is actually going to help people have sexy fun times?!

I present a scenario: You are a college dude. You are at a party, drinking. You meet a girl who is also at this party, drinking. You start flirting and seem to be hitting it off. You invite her to your room. She likes you but knows she does not want to have sex tonight. She:

a) Accepts your invitation, knowing that you will respect her boundaries. You get to make out with her, etc. etc., everybody feels good about everybody else.

b) Demurs, knowing that letting you take her into her room is just asking to be raped, no matter what you say. Stung by rejection, you return to your dorm’s common room to watch Frisky Dingo until passing out on the couch in the early hours of the morning, surrounded by the wrappers of vending machine Cheetos.

Which of these is the pro-sex culture?!?!

Seriously. If straight women know that they can trust their partners to only take sexual activity up to the level they are comfortable with, more sexual activity will happen! How simple is that! Of course, many people are apparently too caught up in their affection for rape culture and punishing women for their sexuality to grasp that…

Also it puzzles me when people talk about the idea of orally obtaining consent for all sex acts as the biggest turn-off ever. I think having a first time with both parties saying “I want to do [x] to you, would you like that?” sounds… pretty awesome.

JenniferS: Seriously. If straight women know that they can trust their partners to only take sexual activity up to the level they are comfortable with, more sexual activity will happen! How simple is that! Of course, many people are apparently too caught up in their affection for rape culture and punishing women for their sexuality to grasp that…

You know, I never thought of it that way, but that makes perfect sense. So many men are so, “OMG, where is the PIV intercourse to which I am entitled!?!” that they don’t realize they might be missing out on some non-PIV super-sexy fun. (Besides the fact, of course, that they are not entitled to put their “P” in anyone else’s “V”–or anywhere else, for that matter. Duh.)Then again, I just get really frustrated with the whole “PIV is sex, everything else is foreplay” attitude in general.

Jennifer S.: Also it puzzles me when people talk about the idea of orally obtaining consent for all sex acts as the biggest turn-off ever. I think having a first time with both parties saying “I want to do [x] to you, would you like that?” sounds… pretty awesome.

Word, word, WORD. How is that not hot?

I tend to stick with a very simple “Is this ok?” when I approach a new activity. If the answer’s “no,” then it’s no. Cool. I’ve avoided something my partner doesn’t like or want right now. BETTER SEX, YAY! But if he says “Hell, yes!” I have a willing, eager partner, and that is SUPER hot. BETTER SEX, YAY!

Because, you know, a willing, eager partner is super hot, right? Why is this so hard for the “getting consent spoils the moment” types to grasp?!?! (You know, I’m thinking about the answer to that question and it’s not very pretty.) :(

His initial point was to “break the boundaries” of the rigid structure of sex. And then he says–

“Gay men—by which I do not mean the eunuchs who constitute the vanguard of so-called queer activism—are far more likely to understand that dressing one’s boyfriend up like a girl and fucking his ass with a dildo is to feminize him.”

THE GAY COMMUNITY DOES NOT NEED KNEPPER TELLING US HOW TO HAVE SEX. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE CONSTITUTES MORE HETERONORM SHIT LIKE ONLY GAY MEN WITHOUT CAJONES HAVE SEX THE NORMAL WAY, AND THEN SAYING THE NONCONFORMIST WAY IS TO SIMULATE MALE-FEMALE POWER RELATIONS. CAPLOCKCAPLOCKCAPLOCK.